Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a lightweight health check and names the expected return fields, implying a safe read-only probe. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the probe semantics make significant hidden behavior unlikely.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short phrases, front-loading the operation type and immediately stating the return values. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool takes no inputs, so no parameter guidance is needed. It names the return fields ('engine_version and transport'), and since there is no output schema, this gives the agent sufficient information about what to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. This matches the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as a 'Liveness probe' and specifies what it returns ('engine_version and transport'), making its purpose clear and differentiating it from report/simulate/validate/version siblings. It lacks an explicit verb+resource construction but the health-probe framing is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Liveness probe' provides clear context for when to use this tool: checking that the service is alive. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.